In this paper I argue that Josef Mitterer’s non-dualizing mode of discourse and Richard Rorty’s ironist philosophy should team up. After an introduction (1), my starting point is the portrayal of anti-representationalism which is of central importance in Rorty’s philosophical project (2). Then I argue that the nondualizing mode of discourse is the best available way to cash out anti-representationalism (3). To close this paper I will describe a type of philosopher who will most likely be sympathetic towards such a non-dualizing project (4). Here I will make use of Rorty’s ideas in calling this figure the edifying ironist. My claim is that edifying ironists should consider adopting the non-dualizing way of speaking and that non-dualists should consider becoming edifying ironists.

Key words: Non-dualism, richard rorty, josef mitterer, edifying philosophy, irony.

Open peer commentary on the article “Conflating Abstraction with Empirical Observation: The False Mind-Matter Dichotomy” by Bernardo Kastrup. Upshot: In this comment I formulate two questions. The first concerns the role and nature of concepts and intuitions; the second is about the status of the “existence of objective matter” as a “hypothesis” or “explanatory model.”

In this paper, I argue that radical constructivists shall refrain from using formulations such as “We can only experience our constructed world but never reality as it is in itself “. Ernst von Glasersfeld’s claim that knowledge in principle cannot reflect reality is symptomatic in this respect (von Glasersfeld 1981, p. 95). The problem is that many radical constructivists take these formulations and the idea behind it for granted – although they are self-contradictory. \\To resolve this problem, I propose that constructivists are well advised to adopt Richard Rorty’s “antirepresentationalist particularism.” In this way we do not answer the problem of self-contradiction in an argumentative way, but we lose interest in making such problematic statements. As I take it, after we freed ourselves from the ensnarement of such statements forced upon us by philosophical tradition, radical constructivism becomes even more fascinating and enchanting.

Open peer commentary on the article “Semiosis as Eigenform and Observation as Recursive Interpretation” by Diana Gasparyan. Abstract: In this commentary, I would like to make two points. The first point is concerned with the typology of the concept(s) of “sign.” All of Gasparyan’s examples of signs are conventional signs, in the formation of which humans, by definition, play an important role- but do her arguments apply to all kinds of signs, as she claims? The second point is about the possibility of a metaposition to semiotics. Gasparyan argues that such a metaposition is impossible and I would like to shed more light on the scope of this claim.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism, Fast Thinking, Heuristics and Sustainable Development” by Hugh Gash. Abstract: I argue that a radical constructivist approach might focus on providing us with what I call “tamed heuristics.” This would make our fast and intuitive evaluation more reliable in that it leads to more viable outcomes. I also consider the question of why this should be an interesting enterprise when we also could try to get rid of heuristics as far as possible and replace them with instances of thoroughly, careful slow thinking, instead.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I am concerned with questions about the concept of “linguistic experiences.” I would like to gain more insight into how “understanding propositional content” works, given that linguistic acts are interpreted as providing us with experiences.